Between Grammar and Philosophy Alessandro Garcea
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism: Between Grammar and Philosophy Alessandro Garcea
To cite this version:
Alessandro Garcea. Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism: Between Grammar and Philosophy. Giuseppe Pezzini; Barnaby Taylor. Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World, Cambridge University Press, pp.79-102, 2019. halshs-02160874
HAL Id: halshs-02160874 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02160874 Submitted on 4 Feb 2020
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism Between Grammar and Philosophy Alessandro Garcea
Introduction ‘A frustratingly mysterious figure, though he was a friend of Cicero and praetor in ’ (Rawson : ), Nigidius Figulus died in exile, in May or June , before Cicero could utter any oratio ad clementiam Caesaris in his favour. Nevertheless, in the extant beginning of his Timaeus (§ = test. Swoboda), Cicero included a vibrant eulogy of his friend, whose charac- ter well suited that of the Pythagorean Timaeus of Locri Epizephyrii. Nigidius’ learning was unanimously acknowledged. Even if he does not always agree with him, Aulus Gellius praises him as homo eruditissimus (..): Nigidius is iuxta M. Varronem doctissimus (..), so that this couple of uiri Romani generis doctissimi (..) form the columina of the late Republican culture (..), the sole difference between them being the abstruse character (§ obscuritas subtilitasque) of Nigidius’ writings that hindered their survival. Putting Nigidius’ Commentarii grammatici together with the astronom- ical and theological works that gave him the reputation of Pythagoricus et magus (Hier. Chron. a. Abr. ()=test. S.), modern critics generally interpret Nigidius’ linguistic thought from a Pythagorean point of view, even if our evidence about a supposed preoccupation with grammar by the Pythagoreans is very thin, apart from their interest in the mystic power of words – an aspect that, in any case, is absent from Nigidius’ fragments. What is unquestionable is rather Nigidius’ allegiance
Yet Nigidius’ Pythagoreanism presents some problems: see Musial , Flinterman : –. Carcopino (: –) is quite representative of this stance: ‘Jusque dans les étymologies qu’il propose pour les mots de la langue latine, il reconnaît, soit l’action des puissances dont Pythagore lui a livré le secret, soit l’ébauche des commandements que sa sagesse surhumaine défendit d’enfreindre.’ Della Casa (: –) associates Nigidius’ fragments with the following testimonies, allegedly representing the ‘studi linguistici del pitagorismo’: Iamblichus VP (C DK) τί τὸ σοφώτατον; ἀριθμός· δεύτερον δὲ τὸ τοῖς πράγμασι τὰὀνόματα τιθέμενον, also found in Proclus, In Cra., who adds (.–): οὐκ ἄρα, φησὶ Πυθαγόρας, τοῦ τυχόντος ἐστὶ τὸὀνοματουργεῖν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ τὸν
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
to a naturalistic point of view, whereby Stoic influences are combined with some original ideas on the overall grammar of the Latin language. The following attempt at a systematic presentation of this approach will start from Nigidius’ theory of natural articulatory symbolism (§), an adapta- tion of Chrysippus’ use of language as a philosophical argument (§); then, after a reconstruction of Nigidius’ lost work on Latin grammar (§.), the ethical character of his etymologies will be taken into account (§.), as well as their relation to Varro’s contemporary explanations (§.); finally, a study of the presence of naturalistic theories in Nigidius’ morphological fragments on derivation (§.), inflection (§.), and word classes (§.) will be undertaken.
Nigidius’ Theory of Natural Articulatory Symbolism In his Commentarii grammatici, Nigidius Figulus openly treated the philosophical question of the natural or arbitrary character of language and pleaded for the first conception with different arguments, from which Aulus Gellius singles out a very peculiar one. According to Nigidius, when uttering the personal pronouns, our speech organs change shape depending on whether we are designating someone else (protrusion) or ourselves (protraction): nomina uerbaque non positu fortuito, sed quadam ui et ratione naturae facta esse P. Nigidius in grammaticis commentariis docet, rem sane in philosophiae discertationibus celebrem. (.) quaeri enim solitum aput philosophos, φύσει τὰὀνόματα sint ἢ θέσει.(.) in eam rem multa argumenta dicit, cur uideri possint uerba esse naturalia magis quam arbitraria. (.) ex quibus hoc uisum est lepidum et festiuum: ‘‘uos’–inquit – cum dicimus, motu quodam oris conueniente cum ipsius uerbi demonstra- tione utimur et labeas sensim primores emouemus ac spiritum atque animam porro uersum et ad eos, quibuscum sermocinamur, intendimus. at contra cum dicimus ‘nos’, neque profuso intentoque flatu uocis neque proiectis labris pronuntiamus, sed et spiritum et labeas quasi intra nosmet ipsos coercemus. hoc idem fit et in eo, quod dicimus ‘tu’, ‘ego’ et ‘tibi’ et ‘mihi’. nam sicuti, cum adnuimus et abnuimus, motus quidam ille uel capitis uel oculorum a natura rei, quam significat, non abhorret, ita in his
νοῦν ὁρῶντος καὶ τὴν φύσιν τῶν ὄντων· φύσει ἄρα τὰὀνόματα; Cicero Tusc. . (see below, n. ). For a justified scepticism, see Thesleff : . Dillon (: ) finds some passages περὶ τῆςτῶν ὀνομάτων θέσεως in Philo (esp. Leg. alleg. .–; QG .), which would show that ‘there is ... a consensus among Platonists, Stoics and Pythagoreans by Philo’s time that words are attached to things by nature, not by convention’. On the complexity of this debate among the Middle Platonists see van den Berg : –.
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism uocibus quasi gestus quidam oris et spiritus naturalis est. eadem ratio est in Graecis quoque uocibus, quam esse in nostris animaduertimus. Publius Nigidius in his Grammatical Notes shows that nouns and verbs were formed, not by accidental imposition, but by a certain power and design of nature, a subject very popular in the discussions of the philosophers; for they used to inquire whether words originate by nature or by imposition. Nigidius employs many arguments to this end, to show that words appear to be natural rather than arbitrary. Among these the following seems particularly neat and ingenious: ‘When we say uos (you) – says Nigidius –, we make a movement of the mouth appropriate to the indication of the word; for we gradually protrude the tips of our lips and direct the impulse of the breath towards those with whom we are speaking. But on the other hand, when we say nos (us), we do not pronounce the word with a powerful forward impulse of the voice, nor with the lips protruded, but we restrain our breath and our lips, so to speak, within ourselves. The same thing happens in the words tu (thou), ego (I), tibi (to thee), and mihi (to me). For just as when we assent or dissent, a movement of the head or eyes is not alien to the nature of the thing signified, so too in the pronunciation of these words there is a kind of natural gesture made with the mouth and breath. The same principle that we have noted in our own speech applies also to Greek words.’ (Nigidius fr. S. = GRFF = FDS ap. Gell. ..–; transl. after Rolfe : ) Like other Republican scholars and men of letters, Nigidius was very interested in phonetics, as many extant fragments prove. Yet here his
He observed that vocalic I and V are always in a secondary position (subditae) in descending diphthongs but come first (praeeunt) in ascending diphthongs, and in this case cannot be deemed to be vowels (fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. ..): A et O semper principes sunt, I et V semper subditae, E et subit et praeit; , which represent allophones of the velar /k/, noted
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
approach is unique. He starts by contrasting [wōs] with [nōs]: the protru- sion and roundedness of the lips at the beginning of the second-person plural pronoun manifests, by a physiological sign, the act of speaking to someone else; conversely, because of its internal nasality and lack of protrusion (neque profuso intentoque flatu uocis neque proiectis labris), the first-person plural pronoun designates the speaker her/himself. The same seems to apply to the singular: in [tū], [t] is contextually labialized and assumes the same character of [wōs], whereas [ego] has no labialization nor roundedness, and therefore self-designates the source of an utterance. In the dative, the opposition [tibi] vs. [mihi] seems again to rely on the nasality, the bilabial [m] being allegedly taken as a self-reference. Nigidius also observes that the same principles hold for Greek pronouns (eadem ratio est in Graecis quoque uocibus), an additional remark reminding his readers of the origins of this debate. In fact, in a well-known passage of Plato’s Cratylus, Socrates defined the phonemes not on the basis of the acoustic impressions that they engender, but according to the movements of the speech organs (–). This indeed shows that words are motivated by nature, since the signifier establishes with its denotatum the same relation that a specific articulatory feature has with the same denotatum and this correspondence is supposed to prove the truthfulness of the denominations. More specifically, however, Nigidius’ reference to articulatory symbolism, which is different from the phonetic or acoustic symbolism treated elsewhere by Plato, presupposed an important demon- stration provided by Chrysippus in his treatise On Soul. In order to understand the meaning of this argument, it is necessary to give a brief outline of Chrysippus’ work.
Chrysippus’ Linguistic Argument When he first arrived in Rome during the summer of , Galen per- formed several experiments on the human spinal column and nerves whose ultimate purpose was to replace the physicians’, Peripatetic, and Stoic
Lucilio). A desire to create a one-to-one relationship between phonology and alphabet also led Varro (ibid. and GRFF = G.–S. ap. Cassiod. Orth. GL ..–) and Nigidius (fr. S. = GRFF ap. Mar. Victorin. Ars GL ..–. = §. M.) to deny
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism doctrines of the heart as the seat of the main psychic functions (ἡγεμονι- κόν) with the Platonic tripartite location of the soul in brain (reason), heart (passions), and belly/liver (desire). He also wrote a treatise On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato, where he dealt with the first two parts of the soul in books to , with passions in books to , and with the appetitive part of the soul in book . Chrysippus’ Περὶ ψυχῆς appeared there as a polemical target, since it mainly relied on instances of primary notions (προλήψεις) stemming from common experience, such as ‘the testimony of women, non-experts, etymologies, motions of the hand, upward or downward movements of the head and poets’ (PHP ..). In fact, when the absence of perceptions prevented him from producing proofs, Chrysippus resorted to common speech, even if this expedient had the sole function of ‘providing only a systematic account of the types of corres- pondences between known properties of objects and known properties of their names’ (Atherton : ), not of being ‘scientifically heuristic, on a par with syllogisms or sense-experience’ (ibid. ). Galen observes that Chrysippus used this method in order to prove that most people perceive passions like anger in their heart: ‘The multitude of men seem to me to be brought together to this view since they perceive, as it were, the affections of the mind happening to them in the region of the chest and especially in the place assigned to the heart. I mean especially in fear and distress, in anger, and inflamed anger most of all’ (transl. De Lacy : ). At the end of this demonstration (PHP ..), Chrysippus presented the heart as the centre of speech, starting again with the average person’s opinion: ‘The multitude of men, cajoled by common usage, and holding close to the tendency mentioned above, truthfully apply such terms to many of these (things)’ (transl. De Lacy : ). The first step of this new argument consisted in quoting some idiomatic expressions with καταβαίνειν ‘go down’, which becomes appropriate
Galen wrote the main part of this work during the Roman period in –; ten years later, having become court physician to Marcus Aurelius, he added three further books on other points of agreement between Plato and Hippocrates. Galen’s On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato – is the main source of Chrysippus’ Περὶ ψυχῆς, from which it takes long excerpts, all from the second half of book : see SVF .– (fr. being a tentative reconstruction of the original textual structure). For an outline of the entire Περὶ ψυχῆς see Gourinat ; see also Blank, in this volume. Chrysippus SVF . ap. Gal. PHP .. κοινῇ δέ μοι δοκοῦσιν οἱ πολλοὶ φέρεσθαι ἐπὶ τοῦθ’ ὡσανεὶ αἰσθανόμενοι περὶ τὸν θώρακα αὐτοῖςτῶν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν παθῶν γιγνομένων καὶ μάλιστα καθ’ ὃν ἡ καρδία τέτακται τόπον, οἷον μάλιστα ἐπὶ τῶν φόβων καὶ τῶν λυπῶν λέγω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀργῆςκαὶ μάλιστα τοῦ θυμοῦ. Chrysippus SVF . ap. Gal. PHP .. σαινόμενοι δὲ φήμῃ οἱ πολλοὶ τούτων πολλὰ κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐπιλέγουσι τοιαῦτα ἐχόμενοι τῆς ῥηθείσης φορᾶς.
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
(cf. § οἰκειότερον ... οἰκείως vs. ἀλλοτριώτερον) only once the mind, where the auditory perception takes place, is located in the chest. The womanly habit of pointing a finger in the direction of the heart, so as to emphasize that an utterance ‘does not go down’, also corroborates this point of view (SVF . ap. Gal. PHP ..). For his next argument Chrysippus relied on etymology. Unfortunately, Galen’s testimony here is disconnected: he only recalls the example of the word ἐγώ pointing to the heart at the beginning of book , after having affirmed that he had already refuted this interpretation in his Περὶὀνομά- των ὀρθότητος. Then, he briefly returns to this issue in book (.–). A tentative reconstruction of the lost evidence would imply that, at first, Chrysippus developed the general concept of δεῖξις, illustrated by the deictic (ἐνδεικνύμεθα) nod of the head towards the chest in the act of assent: ‘If the act of pointing is sufficient evidence for discovering a governing part of the soul, it is not right that it be sufficient in the case of the chest but inadequate in the case of the nose. It should be just as valid for the latter too; or if it does not hold for the nose, it ought not to hold for the chest either. And why is it that when we nod the head in assent we indicate that the rule of the soul is rather in that member toward which we move the head, and not in the member which is moved?’ (transl. De Lacy : ). Only then (οὕτως δὲ καὶ ...) could Chrysippus have taken into account the case of ἐγώ: ‘We also say ego (I) in this way, pointing to ourselves at that place in which thought appears to be, the gesture being carried there naturally and appropriately; and apart from such a gesture of the hand, we
Chrysippus SVF .. ap. Gal. PHP ..– ἡ δεῖξις ἱκανὴ πίστις εἰςεὕρεσιν ἡγεμονικοῦ μορίου ψυχῆς, οὐκ ἐπὶ μὲντῶν στέρνων αὐτὴν ἱκανὴν ὑπάρχειν, ἀσθενῆ δὲἐπὶ τῆς ῥινός, ἀλλὰ κἀπὶ ταύτης ἰσχύειν ὁμοίως· ἢ εἴπερ οὐδ’ ἐπὶ ταύτης, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τῶν στέρνων.(.) διὰ τί δὲἐνταῖς συγκαταθέσεσιν ἐπινεύοντες τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐφ’ ὃ φέρομεν αὐτὴν μέρος, ἐν ἐκείνῳ τὴν ἀρχὴντῆς ψυχῆς ὑπάρχειν ἐνδεικνύμεθα μᾶλλον καὶ οὐκ <ἐν> αὐτῷ τῷ κινουμένῳ; See Dahlmann : –, Tieleman : n. . Chrysippus SVF .. = FDS ap. Gal. PHP ..– οὕτως δὲ καὶ τὸἐγὼ λέγομεν, κατὰ τοῦτο δεικνύντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ᾧ φαίνεσθαι διάνοιαν εἶναι, τῆς δείξεως φυσικῶςκαὶ οἰκείως ἐνταῦθα φερομένης· καὶἄνευ δὲ τῆς κατὰ τὴνχεῖρα τοιαύτης δείξεως νεύοντες εἰςαὑτοὺςτὸἐγὼ λέγομεν, εὐθὺςκαὶ τῆς ἐγὼ φωνῆς τοιαύτης οὔσης καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἑξῆς ὑπογεγραμμένην δεῖξιν συνεκφερομένης.(.) τὸ γὰρ ἐγὼ προφερόμεθα κατὰ τὴν πρώτην συλλαβὴν κατασπῶντες τὸ κάτω χεῖλος εἰςαὑτοὺς δεικτικῶς· ἀκολούθως δὲ τῇ τοῦ γενείου κινήσει καὶἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος νεύσει καὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ δείξει ἡἑξῆς συλλαβὴ παράκειται οὐδὲν ἀποστηματικὸν παρενσημαίνουσα, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τοῦἐκεῖνος συντέτευχεν. According to Galen, since ἐγώ and ἐκεῖνος have the same first syllable, in order to forestall objections, Chrysippus insisted on the function of the second syllable, where ‑κεῖ‑ is different from ‑γώ. Nevertheless, ‘nothing in the quoted passage itself suggests that for Chrysippus the second syllable is at issue ... The “impression of distance” in ἐκεῖνος may simply reside in its relation to ἐκεῖ (“there”)’ (Tieleman : ).
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism nod toward ourselves as we say ego (I); indeed, the very word egô (I) is of this description and its pronunciation is accompanied by the gesture next described. For as we pronounce ego (I), at the first syllable we drop the lower lip in a way that points to ourselves, and in conformity with the movement of the chin, the nod toward the chest, and such gesturing, the next syllable is juxtaposed; and it gives no suggestion of distance, such as that produced by the second syllable of ekeinos (that person, he)’ (transl. De Lacy : –). In the case of ἐγώ, the imitation is based not on an onomatopoeia, but on a form of δεῖξις: in the interior self-perception of the soul, which is the semantics of ‘I’, the motion of the soul towards its seat or self-directed designation matches – φυσικῶςκαὶ οἰκείως – the movements of the speech organs that utter ἐγώ (§). After treating the case of ἐγώ (PHP .. ἑξῆςτῶν προειρημένων), Chrysippus added a new, different etymology. According to him, καρδία was derived from κράτησις ‘power’ and κυρεία ‘authority’, because the heart is the seat of the dominant part of the soul: ‘Concordant with all this, the heart (kardia) got its name by virtue of a certain power and sovereignty, from the fact that the sovereign and ruling part of the soul is in it; it is called, as it were, kratia (power)’ (transl. De Lacy : ). Although this etymology is closely connected with the self-direction of the soul that is presupposed by the explanation of ἐγώ, it is evident that καρδία needs specific cognitive procedures in order to be clarified. Yet the naturalistic approach can still hold. The representations of the physical objects (σώματα) that are activated by the sensorial perceptions (φαντασίαι αἰσθητικαί) result in onomatopoeic formations and words that affect us in the same way as their designata affect our senses; for the rest of the vocabulary, other types of cognitive relationships are pertinent, espe- cially with the rational representations (φαντασίαι λογικαί) of incorporeals (ἀσώματα) produced by the elaboration of the sensory perceptions. These are paralleled by the ways in which new notions are created (Chrysippus SVF . = FDS ap. Diog. Laert. .–: καθ’ ὁμοιότητα,by
Available sources (Chrysippus SVF . = FDS ap. Diog. Laert. .; SVF . = FDS ap. Sext. Emp. Math. .) establish a link between deixis and definite propositions, where a personal or a demonstrative pronoun occurs, and contrast them with indefinite propositions, where an indefinite pronoun or ἐκεῖνος is the subject. Only the first ones presuppose the existence, here and now, of the designated object (Matthaios : n. ). On the Latin tradition see Garcea . Chrysippus SVF . = FDS ap. Gal. PHP .. τούτοις πᾶσι συμφώνως καὶ τοὔνομα τοῦτ’ ἔσχηκεν ἡ καρδία κατά τινα κράτησιν καὶ κυρείαν ἀπὸ τοῦἐναὐτῇ εἶναι τὸ κυριεῦον καὶ κρατοῦν τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος, ὡς ἂν κρατία λεγομένη.
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
resemblance; κατ’ ἀναλογίαν, by analogy; κατ’ ἐναντίωσιν, by contrariety) and by specific rhetorical strategies. Interestingly enough, Galen notes that Chrysippus also developed the etymology of ἐγώ in his On Etymologies (PHP .. ἐντοῖς ἐτυμολογικοῖς = SVF . = FDS , see also ..– = SVF . = FDS ). These could refer to the six books of his Περὶ τῶν ἐτυμολογικῶνπρὸς Διοκλέα or to the four books ἐτυμολογικῶνπρὸς Διοκλέα that are quoted in the catalogue of his works by Diogenes Laertius, under the first ethical section ‘on the articulation of ethical concepts’ (.– Περὶ τὴν διάρθρωσιν τῶν ἠθικῶν ἐννοιῶν). The word διάρθρωσις ‘articulation’ specifically designates the conceptual operation performed through the clarification of lexical relations: this raises awareness of the conceptions that are naturally embedded in us and that, as a consequence, could be used as criteria of truth (Tieleman : –). So, if in Chrysippus’ On Soul ‘the expressions whose literal and physical sense ...is still to some extent present in the speaker’s mind appear to have predominated’ (ibid. ), it is probable that the Etymological Inquiries focused specifically on etymological analyses of the καρδία type, that apply to the greatest part of the vocabulary.
Return to Nigidius
. Nigidius’ Commentarii Grammatici With Chrysippus’ theory in the background, it is now possible to make some comments on Nigidius’ extract. First of all, Aulus Gellius seems to have condensed his source, where he also found references to the original etymology of Greek ἐγώ: eadem ratio est in Graecis quoque uocibus (§) seems also to suggest that possible formal differences between languages do not invalidate the basic principle of the articulatory symbolism, which holds for both Greek and Latin. Like Chrysippus, Nigidius referred as well
See Barwick a: –. The fullest taxonomy is found in an otherwise polemical presentation by Aug. Dial. (.–. Crecelius = pp. – Jackson–Pinborg). It includes similitudo soni (res cum sono uerbi aliqua similitudine concinat: onomatopoeic expressions like tinnitus, hinnitus, balatus, clangor, stridor or phonosymbolic expressions, like mel ‘honey’, with smooth phonemes); similitudo tactus (ita res ipsae adficiunt, ut uerba sentiuntur: e.g. crura ‘legs’, whose length and hardness remind us of the wood of a crux ‘cross’); similitudo rerum (κατάχρησις: μεταφορά, μετάληψις); uicinitas (μετωνυμία: per efficientiam – per effecta – per id quo continetur – per id quod continetur – a parte totum – a toto pars, e.g. piscina ‘bath’ from piscis ‘fish’, since it contains water, where fishes live); contrarium (ἀντίφρασις: e.g. lucus ‘sacred grove’ from minimum lucere ‘to have very little light’).
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism to the nod of the head towards the chest in the act of assent. Gellius does not explain why motus quidam ille uel capitis uel oculorum a natura rei, quam significat, non abhorret (ibid.), but Nigidius almost certainly knew that deixis was connected to this topic, because he used the technical term uerbi demonstratio with uos. On the other hand, he probably omitted all the psychological aspects of his Stoic source: spiritus and anima are more related to the breathing in phonation than to the process of self- recognition to which Chrysippus alluded. Even if Gellius’ intermediation does not give all the explanations required for a proper understanding of Nigidius’ theories, it is feasible that the latter included Chrysippean etymologies in his grammatical commentaries. Since this work was alien to psychological theories, it is likely that it relied on Chrysippus’ ἐτυμολογικά, whose main object was Greek vocabulary. Be that as it may, Gellius undeniably testifies that, like other ancient sources, Nigidius conflated phylogenesis and the ontology of language: nomina uerbaque non posito fortuito ...facta esse (§), like parallel Greek expressions such as οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἔτυχεν ...αἱἙλληνικαὶ λέξεις ἐπετέθησαν (GG ...–; .–)andπεποιημένα, refer to the origin of language and the lexical imposition by a mythological or historical benefactor, or also by a group of human beings. The fact that those people, whoever they were, assigned names quadam ui et ratione naturae (ibid.) then becomes a strong argument in favour of the natural corres- pondence between language and reality that justifies any etymological research: uerba esse naturalia magis quam arbitraria (§); motu quodam oris conueniente cum ipsius uerbi demonstratione (§); in his uocibus quasi gestus quidam oris et spiritus naturalis est (ibid.). In order to find other instances of this conception in the scanty fragments of the Commentarii grammatici, one should start with an over- view of this rather obscure work in at least books. Like other similar works of the late Roman Republic, this one did not have an immediate
Swoboda (: fr. app. crit.) cites the parallel example of Gell. .. multitudinis demonstrationem ‘designation of the plural’; more specifically Nigidius GRFF = S. ap. Gell. .. has temporis demonstrationem ‘designation of the time’, but Gell. .. uerbi demonstratio is probably the equivalent of δεῖξις in Chrysippus’ model. See Tieleman : n. . See Fehling ; specifically on Stoic sources: Allen . New edition by A. Garcea and V. Lomanto in preparation for the Collection des Universités de France. The quotations by Gellius include a reference to in commentariorum undetricesimo (..). There is no proof that there were only books, or that their total was necessarily .
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
pedagogic aim. Gellius considers it as a sort of personal and colossal notebook, where Nigidius wrote everything that he deemed interesting to himself, without putting the material in order or thinking about his possible readership. Trying to reconstruct an overall structure, scholars have been forced to admit that the references to specific books in the ancient sources do not permit us to identify any thematic coherence. Only the following references are explicitly given by the avail- able sources:
E NIGIDII LIBRO ARGVMENTVM sempiternum /perpetuum (below, n. ) irascere / irasci (below, n. ) uetustiscere / ueterascere (below, n. ) religentem / religiosus (below, n. ) tintinnire (below, n. ) fit / facitur (below, n. ) adverbs ending in ‑im (below, nn. –) subruptum erit past or future? (below, n. ) orthography, accent: Valéri / Vàleri : amici / amicei : terrai / terrae ; mi / miei (below, nn. –) nixurit, qui niti uult (below, n. ) etymologies of auarus and locuples (below, nn. –)
This meagre evidence seems at least to rule out two possibilities: different topics are not treated in the same book and the same topic is not developed in completely separate books. Nigidius rather devoted one or more books to a single, specific topic, like the inchoative forms that are studied in Commentarii –. The fact that he took his notes while reading one or more sources on a given subject does presuppose a certain order. In turn, Gellius seems to quote his extracts in the order in which he read Nigidius; for this reason, the same topic, which he found in a specific book – or series of books – of the Commentarii, ends up being treated within the same book of the Noctes or in adjacent books:
Gellius .. anguste perquam et obscure disserit, ut signa rerum ponere uideas ad subsidium magis memoriae suae quam ad legentium disciplinam. See also Gellius ..–, quoted above, Introduction. See Swoboda : –, Della Casa : . See Swoboda : –.
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism
IN GELLII LIBRO E NIGIDII LIBRO ARGVMENTVM . ? de adiectiuis bibax et bibosus (below, n. ) . de adiectiuis religens et religiosus (below, n. ) . lemma ? de etymo adiectiuorum uanus et stolidus (see below, n. ) .. ? de etymo adiectiui infestus (below, n. ) . ? uerba sunt naturalia magis quam arbitraria (above, §) . de etymo adiectiuorum auarus et locuples (below, nn. –) .. ? de primaria significatione uocis mature (below, n. ) . ? quid differat inter mentiri et mendacium dicere (below, n. ) .. ? rusticus fit sermo, si adspires perperam (above, n. ) .. ? de etymo fratris uocabuli (below, n. ) . de accentu et orthographia (below, nn. –) .. ? de uerbo autumo (below, n. ) . de tempore quod esse et erit sign. cum p.p. coniuncta (below, n. ) . ? de particula quin (below, n. ) ..– ? de litteris (above, n. )
This is particularly true of the forms ending in ‑osus, studied in Commentarius (Noctes –), the orthographic problems, including aspiration, treated in Commentarius (Noctes ), and especially the etymologies included in, at least, Commentarius (Noctes –). Given the proximity of Nigidius’ etymological extracts in Gellius . and ., it is feasible that the passage on personal pronouns has been taken from Commentarius or . This would suggest that, like Chrysippus, Nigidius thought of etymology in a broad, inclusive sense, embracing, under the category of referential naturalism, both the deictical value of the speech organs’ movements and the possible modifications of the signifier, whereby one has to find the linguistic motivation of human vocabulary.
. The Ethical Character of Nigidius’ Etymologies Just as Chrysippus explained καρδία as being a conflation of κράτησις and κυρεία (see above, p. ), so Nigidius interpreted the adjective auarus as a conflation of auidus and aeris, with the elimination of the second element
The presence of the terminus technicus προσῳδία / uoculatio both in Gell. .. and .. would appear to prove the common origin of these extracts: see Kretzschmer : , Swoboda : – and fr. app. crit. See Swoboda : .
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
of the diphthong of aeris (still pronounced at the end of the Republican period with two distinct phonemes). This etymology entails an ethical implication, as confirmed by Nigidius’ differentia between parcior and auarus, that lies in the insatiable appetite of the latter. Another adjective, locuples, is also taken as a conflation of loca and plera, suggesting the idea of wealth as an abundance of possessions. The same interpretation is found in Cicero, in a passage that seems to presuppose common knowledge. A sort of variation of the ἕτερος ἐγώ topos is found in Nigidius’ explan- ation of frater as fere alter, that is probably quoted by heart by Gellius, as a complement to Antistius Labeo’s juridical etymology of soror (IAR ap. Gell. ..). Finally, Nigidius relates the adjective infestus to festinare,
fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. ‘auarus’ non simplex uocabulum, sed iunctum copulatumque esse P. Nigidius dicit in commentariorum undetricesimo. ‘auarus enim – inquit – appellatur, qui auidus aeris est. sed in ea copula E littera – inquit – detrita est’. fr. S. = GRFF ap. Serv. Dan. G. . Nigidius: quia qui parcior est, suo contentus est, quod auarus non facit. This interpretation may help us to understand why Nigidius did not choose the obvious derivation of auarus from auere, as Gellius also suggests (..): nam de auaro ambigitur: cur enim non uideri possit ab uno solum uerbo inclinatum, quod est aueo, eademque esse fictura, qua est amarus, de quo nihil dici potest, quin duplex non sit? According to a differentia that was widely known in Antiquity, the uox media auidus derives from auere, whereas auarus, always a pejorative term, stands apart: Nonius p. .– Mercier = Lindsay auarum et auidum ita discernuntur. auarum enim semper in reprehensione est; auidum autem ab auendo, quod est etiam honeste cupiendo, et a dilectione intellegi potest, ac per hoc aliquando malis, aliquando bonis adiungitur causis. fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. item ‘locupletem’ dictum ait [sc. Nigidius] ex conpositis uocibus, qui pleraque loca, hoc est, qui multas possessiones teneret. See Cicero Rep. . tum erat res in pecore et locorum possessionibus, ex quo pecuniosi et locupletes uocabantur. fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. ‘fratris’ autem uocabulum P. Nigidius ... interpretatur: ‘‘frater’ – inquit – est dictus quasi ‘fere alter’’. Without quoting Nigidius, Lossmann (: ) gives the following parallels: Theognis .– ἀλλ’ εἴη τοιοῦτος ἐμοὶ φίλος, ὃςτὸν ἑταῖρον | γινώσκων ὀργὴνκαὶ βαρὺν ὄντα φέρει | ἀντὶ κασιγνήτου; Euripides IT – πότερον ἀδελφὼ μητρός ἐστον ἐκμιᾶς;|φιλότητί γ’· ἐσμὲνδ’ οὐ κασιγνήτω, γύναι; Aristotle EN b–a γονεῖςμὲνοὖν τέκνα φιλοῦσιν ὡς ἑαυτούς (τὰ γὰρ ἐξαὐτῶνοἷον ἕτεροι αὐτοὶ τῷ κεχωρίσθαι), τέκνα δὲ γονεῖς ὡς ἀπ’ ἐκείνων πεφυκότα, ἀδελφοὶ δ’ ἀλλήλους τῷἐκτῶναὐτῶν πεφυκέναι· ἡ γὰρπρὸς ἐκεῖνα ταυτότης ἀλλήλοις ταὐτὸ ποιεῖ· ὅθεν φασὶ ταὐτὸναἷμα καὶῥίζαν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. εἰσὶ δὴ ταὐτό πως καὶἐνδιῃρημένοις. μέγα δὲ πρὸς φιλίαν καὶ τὸ σύντροφον καὶ τὸ καθ’ ἡλικίαν· ἧλιξ γὰρ ἥλικα, καὶ οἱ συνήθεις ἑταῖροι· διὸ καὶἡἀδελφικὴ τῇἑταιρικῇὁμοιοῦται; Cicero Fam. .. (ad Caelium Rufum, / August ) quem [sc. Quintum] tamen si reliquissem, dicerent iniqui non me plane post annum, ut senatus uoluisset, de prouincia decessisse quoniam alterum me reliquissem. As Thesleff (: ) rightly remarks, the fact that the Aristotelian definition ὁ φίλος ἄλλος αὐτός (EN a) was an allegedly Pythagorean ἄκουσμα ([Plutarch], Vit. Hom. ; Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. ; Jerome, adv. Rufin. .)is‘certainly not much to build upon’. This would explain the absence of the title Commentarii and of the book number: see Kretzschmer : , Swoboda : , pace Mercklin : , who thinks that Nigidius’ quotation comes from Labeo. Nonius (pp. .–. M. = L.) echoes Gellius’ passage: see Hertz : . The same etymology, with a Greek alternative option, is given by Paul. Fest. . Lindsay frater a Graeco dictus est φρήτρη, uel quod sit fere alter. When treating the fratres aruales in his De lingua Latina, Varro preferred the derivation from ferre but also gave a possible Greek origin, from φρατρία: fratres aruales dicti qui sacra publica faciunt propterea ut fruges ferant arua: a ‘ferendo’ et ‘aruis’ fratres aruales dicti. sunt qui a ‘fratria’ dixerunt. ‘fratria’ est Graecum uocabulum partis
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism either because an infestus takes an aggressive action against someone else (active meaning) or because he is a designated victim of an impending event, causing a sudden damage (passive meaning). The polar pattern is a recurrent one in Nigidius’ explanations, either for words with double meaning or as a way to express, ex negativo, a medial meaning. So, in order to show that the adverb mature means not ‘so as to anticipate the expected or natural course of events, quickly’ (OLD s.v. ), which is taken as a secondary development, but ‘in good time’ (OLD s.v. ), Nigidius probably established a connection between maturus and maturatus, the image of the ripened apples being particularly suggestive.
. Nigidius’ and Varro’s Etymological Studies Nigidius’ etymological method does not differ from Varro’s any more than it does from that of other ancient grammarians. They applied for their own purposes the Chrysippean method of analyzing καρδία as a conflation of κράτησις ‘power’ and κυρεία ‘authority’. They differ, nevertheless, in their respective purposes, as the well-known Varronian taxonomy of the four levels of explanation (L. .–) clearly shows. The first degree of etymological explanation is that of the populus and applies to transparent
hominum, ut
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
words like uiocurus and argentifodinae. Then comes the level of the Alexandrian grammar (grammatica antiqua), whose focus is on poetical neologisms, like onomatopoeic expressions (e.g. sibilus), compounds (e.g. incuruiceruicum), and derivations (e.g. clupeare). The third level, that of philosophia, takes into consideration the ordinary linguistic usage (quae in consuetudine communi essent), where one finds non-transparent and appar- ently unmotivated words like oppidum, uicus, uia. Finally, the fourth, mysterious level allows Varro to reconstruct the origins of Rome. The majority of scholars make a twofold assumption that consists ()in taking for granted a general, alleged Pythagorean background for this incipit of De lingua Latina book , and () thus associating Varro and Nigidius, who were both interested in Pythagorean philosophy. Varro does indeed mention Pythagoras at §, just before announcing the quadripartition tempus motus locus corpus (§) that he will apply in books –; nevertheless, ‘the quadripartition is not actually attributed to Pythagoras, but is rather superimposed by Varro himself on what he says is the Pythagorean principle of the bipartition of the elements of things’ (Blank : ); moreover, the four etymological levels are completely independent of any Pythagorean reference. As regards the parallels between Nigidius and Varro, it is important to remember that Varro does give explanations of ordinary words, including those quoted in L. ., but that his ultimate goal is ‘to discover and investigate the divine and cultic things from which and for which names were invented by Rome’s founders’ (Blank : ). This endeavour is beyond the lexical world studied by Chrysippus, since it is attained by a sort of revelation of the mysteries belonging to the primitive kings and name-givers. Varro’s stance was Chrysippean only in that it justified the use of etymological inquiries in cases where ‘things are obscure of their own nature – such as the truths about the gods – or have been forgotten over time and disappeared from our world – as have many early Roman customs, rituals, and divinities’ (ibid. ). Nigidius’ etymologies, for their part, focus on the ordinary language for its ethical implications. They are
See e.g. Della Casa : : ‘Nigidio, da buon pitagorico, bene informato sulla leggenda del re legislatore religioso, entra nei penetrali (adytum) del re Numa (regis) e dedica i suoi studi etimologici a quel settore che Varrone poneva tanto in alto.’ On the supposed parallel between the king’s fourth level and the name-giver qui primus, quod summae sapientiae Pythagorae uisum est, omnibus rebus imposuit nomina (Cic. Tusc. .), see esp. Michel and Boyance , followed by Lehmann : –. See L. . qua uehebant, uiae dictae; . oppidum ab opi dictum, quod munitur opis causa ubi sint et quod opus est ad uitam gerendam ubi habeant tuto; . in oppido uici a uia, quod ex utraque parte uiae sunt aedificia.
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism truly ‘philosophical’ etymologies in that they not only correspond to the type of linguistic research that arose historically thanks to the Stoics (Varro’s third degree), but are part of an ethical discourse where linguistic awareness and rightful behaviour combine. Unlike Varro, Nigidius’ interest in the archaic language of the ancients rather reveals a purely philological approach, focusing on diachronic linguistic changes such as the evolution of fricative initials in Latin, the simplification of the infinitive passive ending, the passage from active to deponent verbal forms, and the disappearance of passive forms, as well as certain expressions that needed an explanation, the ambiguities of
For this reason, Rawson (: ) rightly describes Nigidius’ lexical studies as ‘prescriptive as well as descriptive’. Reconstructing a development φορβή > fibra > herba, Nigidius observed that the intermediate stage survived as a dialectal parallel form: fr. S. = GRFF ap. Serv. Dan. G. . fibris] alii fibras herbas adserunt, ut Nigidius commentario grammaticali: ‘φορβὴ
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
ancient laws, and the language of the Carmen Saliare – a grammatical topic well-known at least from Aelius Stilo. Besides these technical issues, Nigidius was interested not in reconstructing the lost past as an antiquar- ian, but in developing the Chrysippean method of the ‘articulation of ethical concepts’ in a form of grammar that, because of its naturalistic foundation, maintained a strong connection with human behaviour. One interesting consequence of Nigidius’ approach to etymology is the importance of the differentiae uerborum, supposed to show ‘philosophical’ definitions. Thus, sempiternus and perpetuus are different because the first is used for immortals, who are eternal (semper), whereas perpetuus applies to human beings, whose nature is to endure (perpeti)difficult situations.
Nigidius (Funaioli app. crit.). Var. L. . gives the same explanation, but it is also possible that the diathesis of this verb was at issue here. Thus, under the heading de diuersa uerborum positione, Diomedes GL ..– observes: ‘quirito’: Liuius in Attico ‘quirit
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism The differentia between stolidus, designating a person with limited intellectual gifts, and uanus, a broader term, used both for frivolous individuals and for liars or deceivers, is attributed to Nigidius by Sulpicius Apollinaris. Gellius adds that Nigidius also gave the etymologies of these terms, and noted this elsewhere in his Noctes. Another notable differentia makes the distinction between a false assertion (mendacium dicere), which simply does not match the reality, and the deceitful behaviour of someone who deliberately lies. This Stoic topic entails, as Nigidius clearly remarks, an ethical aspect, because the agent’s inner intention determines the morality of his actions.
Nigidius’ Morphological Naturalism
. Derivation in Nigidius and Varro Comparison between Nigidius and Varro permits us also to grasp the consequences of their naturalistic point of view in the field of morphology. Like Nigidius, Varro thought that words were originally assigned according to nature; it was nature that guided humans’ lexical coinages, thus justifying the original and most appropriate etymological form of the words. Nature, nevertheless, does not constrain human freedom, so that
fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. ex Apollinari didicimus ‘uanos’ proprie dici, non ut uulgus diceret, desipientis aut hebetes aut ineptos, sed, ut ueterum doctissimi dixissent, mendaces et infidos et leuia inaniaque pro grauibus et ueris astutissime componentes; ‘stolidos’ autem uocari non tam stultos et excordes quam taetros et molestos et inlepidos, quos Graeci μοχθηρούς et φορτικούς dicerent. (.) ἔτυμα quoque harum uocum et origines scriptas esse dicebat in libris Nigidianis. quas requisitas ego et repertas cum primarum significationum exemplis, ut commentariis harum noctium inferrem, notaui et intulisse iam me aliquo in loco commentationibus istis existimo. This must be an allusion to Gellius ., of which only the lemma survives: lepidissima altercatio Fauorini philosophi aduersus quendam intempestiuum de ambiguitate uerborum disserentem; atque inibi uerba quaedam ex Naeuio poeta et Cn. Gellio non usitate collocata; atque ibidem a P. Nigidio origines uocabulorum exploratae. See Hertz : n. , Kretzschmer : , Swoboda : –; the same hypothesis appears in the notes of Jacques Oisel and Johann Friedrich Gronovius, according to the edition of Gellius by the latter and his son, Jacobus Gronovius (Leiden, : n. ). Showing that Nonius’ borrowings from Gellius (from p. . M. = L. fures to p. . M. = L. arcera) follow the order of the books in the Noctes, Hertz (: –) also incorporates into this lost Nigidian excerpt Nonius p. .– M. = L. = fr. S. rudentes ea causa sapientissimi dictos uolunt quod funes, cum uento uerberentur, rudere existimentur; atque hunc sonum proprium funium, non asinorum putant. fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. ..– uerba sunt ipsa haec P. Nigidii ...: ‘inter mendacium dicere et mentiri distat. qui mentitur, ipse non fallitur, alterum fallere conatur; qui mendacium dicit, ipse fallitur’. (.) item hoc addidit [GRFF a]: ‘qui mentitur – inquit – fallit, quantum in se est; at qui mendacium dicit, ipse non fallit, quantum in se est’. (.) item hoc quoque super eadem re dicit [GRFF b] ‘uir bonus’ – inquit ‘– praestare debet ne mentiatur, prudens, ne mendacium dicat; alterum incidit in hominem, alterum non’. Nonius (p. .– M. = L.) echoes this passage. See Colish : –. See especially L. . dicemus primo de temporibus quam quae per ea fiunt, sed ita ut ante de natura eorum: ea enim dux fuit ad uocabula imponenda homini; . quare duce natura si quae [Dahlmann :
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
transgressions (L. . culpa; . imperitia) of its norms in the lexical institution are always possible and inconstantia (L. .) becomes the general feature of this form of linguistic activity. On the other hand, the insertion of a lexeme in the morphological inflectional pattern cannot but follow another form of natura, i.e. the intrinsic and systematic regularity of a given language. Varro treats this topic extensively at the beginning of De lingua Latina book . After demonstrating that regularity prevails in every part of the universe (§§–), he shows that this feature is also more than marginally present in language (§§–). However, people who would be ready to admit the presence of analogy, order, symmetry, and regularity in nature (genus analogiae naturale), may also think that the presence of these principles in the products of the ars (genus analogiae uoluntarium) is merely accidental. From this perspective, the correspondence created by a crafts- man between the two halves of a theatrical backdrop is not on the same level as the immutable trajectories of astral bodies; nor is language as an arbitrary product of human beings. Analogists do acknowledge an arbitrary component in the creation of anomalous derivations (uoluntariae declinationes), like Roma from Romulus, but at the same time consider the inflectional paradigms (declinationes naturales) as a necessary linguistic dimension, regardless of the speakers. As a result, in their opinion, the field of analogy that mirrors natural regularity does not encompass derivational phenomena. This conclusion, which is echoed in other pas- sages (L. .; .), is only nuanced in a single case, when Varro attributes to the analogists what was probably his own opinion, i.e. that derived forms fere non discedunt ab ratione sine iusta causa (L. .; see also GRFF ap. Gell. ..). Therefore, for example, the gladiatorial families took their names Cascelliani, Caeciliani, Aquiliani, and Faustini according to the ‑ius or ‑us endings of the basic forms Cascellius, Caecilius, Aquilius, and Faustus. In spite of that, in book , where he establishes three diuisiones permitting him to select the forms that can be judged to be similar or not, Varro endorses the Alexandrian standard precept: first,
† si, quae Goetz–Schoell] imposita essent uocabula rebus, ne ab omnibus his declinandum [Dahlmann: declina{n}tus Goetz–Schoell] putarent. See L. . impositio est in nostro dominatu, nos in natura
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism invariable forms must be omitted (§); second, as Aristarchus enjoined, derivational phenomena must be excluded (§§–); third, each of the four morpholexical classes of the uerba declinata natura must be evaluated for its own sake, even if forms belonging to different classes can be identical (§); fourth, the pronominal forms must not be taken into account (§§–), since only the nominal ones pass the analogical test. The most striking feature of Nigidius’ morphological researches is that his more explicit naturalism leads him to apply analogy to every aspect of language, including derivational phenomena, which cannot be arbitrary. So, in relation to adjectival and adverbial coinages, he strives to find the specific function of each suffix. In the case of adjectives ending in ‑ōsus, Nigidius compares the forms religens and religiosus in order to show that those ending in ‑ōsus always presuppose a pejorative excess; the same value is clear in bibosus, a deverbative parallel to bibax, not formed on a nominal stem like other adjectives ending in ‑ōsus, and only attested in
See L. . quare proinde ac simile conferri non oportet ac dicere, ut sit ab Roma Romanus, sic ex Capua dici oportere Capuanus, quod in consuetudine uehementer natat, quod declinantes imperite rebus nomina imponunt, a quibus cum accepit consuetudo, turbulenta necesse est dicere. itaque neque Aristarchii neque alii in analogiis defendendam eius susceperunt causam, sed, ut dixi, hoc genere declinatio in co
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Laberius (fr. Panayotakis ap. Gell. ..). As regards adverbs ending in ‑im, Nigidius recognizes that expulsim and cursim are formed on the stems of verbs of motion, and – adsimulanter ‘analogically’–creates similar adverbs for human behaviours that are similar to those of different animals; these are probably purely theoretical creations since they are not attested anywhere.
. The Inflectional συμπάθεια Also in the field of nominal inflection, Nigidius’ analogy turns out to be a general principle, which goes beyond single morphological patterns. With regard to the controversial status of the ŭ‑stems, Nigidius and Varro were in agreement on proposing the genitive ‑u‑is and the dative ‑u‑ī,since these forms, found in Terence, established a parallel with the genitive and dative singular of consonant stems (duc-is duc-i)andĭ-stems (caed-i-s caed-i), thus contributing to the assimilation of ŭ-stems to a nominal group with a firmer identity. The fact that these forms had the same number of syllables in both cases may also have influenced their selection.
fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. bibendi auidum P. Nigidius in commentariis grammaticis ‘bibacem’ et ‘bibosum’ dicit. See Panayotakis : . Although these passages are not attributed to Nigidius, Swoboda (: –) hesitantly puts forward Nonius p. .– M. = L. (mulierosus), pp. .–. M. = L. (uirosa), and pp. .–. M. = – L. (morosus) as, respectively, fr. , , and of the Commentarii grammatici. See Carilli : –. fr. S. = GRFF ap. Non. p. .– M. = L.: Nigidius commentariorum lib. XX: ‘cuiusmodi genus aduerbiorum a uerbis motus [Mercier : aduerbii motu codd.] quod uenit [Mercier : quae uenit codd. : quae ueni
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism Following the same formal and analogical criterion, Varro introduced uniformity into the paradigms for io‑ and o‑stems, recommending a double in the isosyllabic genitive and vocative singular (GRFF = G.–S. ap. Char. .– B.: Lucii, Aemilii). Nigidius, for his part, acknowledged the current exilis spelling for the genitive singular of io‑ stems (in other words, simply ) and, at the same time, used allographs to distinguish cases with archaic but not totally obsolete graph- emes. In all likelihood, he adhered to existing Lucilian proposals; so the same morpheme ‑ī, represented by in the genitive singular, was completed or substituted by
According to Kretzschmer : , followed by Swoboda app. crit., Gellius took this information from Caesellius Vindex’s Lectiones antiquae. See already Lucilius GRFF = – M. = H fr. Ch. ap. Char. .–. B.: genitive singular Caeli, Numeri. The incomplete but intelligible version of the Neapolitanus IV A (nū quā ll hoc intulisset nisi et numerum per .i. huius ciendū crederet), which Keil (GL ..–) follows with some corrections (numquam enim hoc intulisset, nisi et ‘Numerium’ per I, huius <‘Numeri’>, faciendum crederet), has to be preferred to any attempt to change the text according to the codex Dusae, as Barwick (p. .–) and the most recent editors of Lucilius do (numquam enim hoc intulisset, nisi
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
b) magni amici singular genitive and plural nominative are homographs and homophones; the augmentation in quantity in the plural should become explicit with a supplementary
read as mei interrogandi ...(for me interrogandi ...see Nonius . M. = L. app. crit.). See Ronconi a: –, Della Casa : –. Although casus interrogandi ‘genitive’ is paralleled by casus nominandi, dandi, accusandi, uocandi (Pisani ), scholars have argued for the other hypothesis. They infer the analogy λόγος κλητικός : κλητικὴ ππῶσις (casus interrogandi)=λόγος ἐρωτηματικός : casus uocandi from Ammonius In Int. CAG ...– (Ronconi b: –) or note that Aristotle (Po. a–) also refers to the intonations of a question and a command as ‘ππῶσις’ (De Martino ), even though Aristotelian ππῶσις covers every form of non-declarative utterance. Starting from the interrogatio used to ascertain the case of an inflected form, Belardi and Cipriano () rather think that casus interrogandi is a plural, designating all the oblique cases (and each of them); casus nominandi, for its part, would be a controversial ππῶσις and casus uocandi a holophrastic form. fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. id quoque in eodem libro Nigidiano animaduertimus: ‘si huius – inquit – ‘amici’ uel huius ‘magni’ scribas, unum I facito extremum; sin uero hi ‘magnei’,hi‘amicei’ casu multitudinis recto, tum ante I scribendum erit E, atque id ipsum facies in similibus’. fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. item: si huius ‘terrai’ [Ascensius : terrae ψ] scribas, I littera sit extrema, si huic ‘terrae’, per E scribendum est. For Della Casa : , ‘Dato che la sopravvivenza di questo esito arcaico era soltanto documentata per il genitivo e non per il dativo, Nigidio poteva concludere, in base all’uso, che l’ai fosse da mantenersi per i soli casi del genitivo.’ fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. item: ‘mei’ qui scribit in casu interrogandi, uelut cum dicimus ‘mei studiosus’, per I unum scribat, non per E; at cum ‘mi
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
Nigidius Figulus’ Naturalism based on the correspondence between corporeal and incorporeal items; nevertheless, nothing prevented ancient grammarians from thinking that they relied on Stoic authorities, who took a lively interest in universal συμπάθεια.
. Word Classes A last point deserves some attention. Nigidius’ interest in semantic motiv- ation in every aspect of language leads him also to study aspects that are generally alien to this field, especially the complex topic of connectives. Gellius . devotes a thorough analysis to quin, starting from a taxonomy of the combinations that this particle can engender with differ- ent illocutional modalities: quin particula, quam grammatici ‘coniunctio- nem’ appellant, uariis modis sententiisque conectere orationem uidetur (§). Following a pattern that recalls the Stoic list of ten λεκτὰ αὐτοτελῆ, he relies on an implicit truth-conditional criterion that allows him to distinguish increpare, interrogare, and exhortari (§a) from confirmare in a positive or negative way (§§b–). Then he resumes his topic, adding a reference to the etymology of quin, considered as a compound (< qui + ne), and to its precise, evidently motivated meaning, that is not its simple connective function. Nigidius treated both aspects in his grammatical work. Although Gellius does not develop this further, the fact that Nigidius gave a certa significatio to a conjunction places him on the side of the Stoic critics against the Aristotelian definition of σύνδεσμος as an asemantic unit (Po. b–a), and more specifically in favour of the recent developments of the Stoic ‘grammar’. It was in fact Posidonius (fr. E.–K. ap. Apollon. Conj. GG ...–) who, after affirming that conjunctions and prepositions belong to the same category, showed that ἐπιδοῦναι and ἀποδοῦναι are semantically different because they have different prefixes with identical verbal themes. Similarly, in Nigidius’ eyes, reconstructing the etymology of quin revealed the proper meaning of
See Trypho frr. – Velsen ap. EM .– s.v. λιμός; .– s.v. φιλήτης; Belardi , Sluiter : –. See Garcea : – for a more detailed study of this chapter, which is probably entirely borrowed from Nigidius’ Commentarii (Kretzschmer : –, Mercklin : ). fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. hanc uero particulam, de qua dicimus, nisi quis didicerit compositam copulatamque esse neque uim tantum coniungendi habere, sed certa quadam significatione factam, numquam profecto rationes ac uarietates istius comprehensurus est. quod quia longioris dissertationis est, poterit, cui otium est, reperire hoc in P. Nigidii commentariis, quos grammaticos inscripsit.
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48066-6 — Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World Edited by Giuseppe Pezzini , Barnaby Taylor More Information
this connective, which was further specified by its insertion into different types of sentences. Prepositions also share similar properties. In a form like aestumo, which he connects with *abaestumo, Nigidius remarks that the prefix ab adds a totalizing feature to the verbal stem of aestumo,asinabnumero compared to numero.
Conclusion In conclusion, although his Commentarii grammatici are poorly known because of their fragmentary status, Nigidius seems to subscribe to a general form of naturalism that made him believe in an organicistic universe mirrored by the ‘pansemantic’ and phylogenetically justified universe of language. When he reconstructed the articulatory symbolism of the Latin personal pronouns, Nigidius chose a Stoic example that was not disconnected from the rest of his work. Differently from the not always successful combination of naturalism and Alexandrian formal grammar in Varro, Nigidius multiplied complementary forms of the same concep- tion: ethical etymologies, combined with similar differentiae uerborum, and a broad idea of morphological analogy, where every linguistic item, and every formal transformation, not only for inflectional but also for deriv- ational processes, should be significant. For the same reason, Nigidius did not refrain from searching for semantic values also in such word classes as conjunctions and prepositions, which the traditional linguistic debate tended to consider as simple supports for signifying units.
fr. S. = GRFF ap. Gell. .. inuenimus autem in commentario Nigidiano uerbum ‘autumo’ compositum ex ‘ab’ praepositione et uerbo ‘aestumo’ dictumque intercise ‘autumo’ quasi ‘abaestumo’, quod significaret ‘totum aestumo’ tamquam ‘abnumero’. This compound is not otherwise attested (TLL ..–); only Gloss. .. translates it as ἀπαριθμῶ. For this interpretation of autumo as Nigidian see also Johannes Scotus Eriugena defloratio de Macrobio GL ..– (p. app. crit. De Paolis), exc. Bob. de Macrobio GL ..– (p. .– De Paolis), and frg. Bob. de uerbo GL ..– (p. .– Passalacqua), passages that echo Gellius (Schoemann : –) rather than a third, common source (Kretzschmer : ). On Varro’s theories on grammatical genre and number see Garcea : –, –.
© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org